Letters: Small Mojave Cross Could Change All

Small Mojave Cross Could Change All
Editor, Times-Dispatch: With all the life-threatening problems and financial woes facing our country today I take issue with the ACLU for arguing over a small cross -- built out in the middle of the Mojave Dessert to recognize our World War I dead -- as unconstitutional or a government endorsement of religion.

The Supreme Court must listen to this frivolous suit and waste our tax dollars. Should the high court decide that the ACLU has a case and rule in its favor, then how far should we carry this burdensome cross? Then every battlefield around the world marking the graves of our fallen heroes will need to be marked differently. Imagine removing all the crosses at Arlington National Cemetery. This country would be outraged, and rightfully so. If Chief Justice John Roberts wants to go down in history for making intelligent decisions then this small cross case with large consequences should be dismissed.

And while the justices are at it, why not put an end to squabbling over the Ten Commandments and prayer in public or anywhere any individual finds the need? The fallen soldiers and our forefathers are dead and most likely buried under a cross, so why desecrate their graves or the ultimate price they paid so a very few can argue that we are infringing on First Amendment rights?

We have bigger decisions that need handling now and this is not the right time to waste our limited resources on a little plot of desert that isn't even maintained by the government or with tax dollars. Perhaps more time should be spent on investigating the ACLU and its motives.

Keith Kessler.
Dale City.

Many people in the United States are deeply religious and many are deeply rooted in historical preservation. But we must acknowledge that we are not a homogenous people when it comes to religion and philosophy, and since government is charged with representing all of the people, we must find a way to solve the issue permanently that is compliant with our Constitution, respects our traditions, and satisfies those who feel the need to involve their religious symbols with honoring our war dead.

Quite frankly, it seems that Congress made the effort to do exactly the right thing: privatize the land where the monument stands. I think that we all acknowledge the right of property owners to erect whatever type of memorial they wish on their own land. And I'm certain there are enough people sympathetic to the cause of memorializing our patriots that many foundations can be formed and funded through private donations to maintain and protect these war memorials.

It is often difficult for people to accept that just because they may be the majority of our society, that does not give them the right to get what they want while excluding others. I believe in the all-or-nothing rule: Either we allow all religious symbols on government property or we allow none. Not even the ACLU would want these historical memorials demolished (at least I hope not!), so let's do the right thing: privatize the memorial lands and allow private foundations to assume responsibility for their upkeep.

R. Eriks Goodwin.
Richmond.

She focused solely on my third proposition, gleefully spotting a profound ironic contradiction in my argument. I'm disappointed that she didn't employ the same trenchant analysis on my speculation about liberal telepathy. In asserting that we shouldn't dismiss the historical fact of racism, she avoids my real point that it shouldn't be used as an all-purpose cudgel. Davis presumes that I might dislike criticism of those waving vile Obama-as-Hitler signs, unkindly suggesting that I am blindly partisan. This may disappoint her, but because my standards are consistent, I loathe that kind of idiocy every bit as much as the Bush-as-Hitler signs.

Davis further takes me to task for failing to put forward a substantive position on the policies I claim to care about. Actually, I made a substantive case for the specific topic I chose to write about and wonder which policies it was she imagines I made claims about.

My core point is that a large percentage of those on the political left -- from Democratic Party leaders to celebrities, columnists, and letter-writers -- engage in character assassination as a mainstream form of argument -- and that is wrong. If Davis believes that my little not-going-to-take-it-any more letter is somehow equivalent to the widely and oft-repeated tactic that provoked it, no amount of logic will prevail. The irony is that her determined attempt to prove me wrong was evidence that I achieved part of what I set out to do. Give them a taste of their own medicine and see how they like it. Obviously, she did not.

Rick Provost.
Midlothian.

Richard Betton.
Petersburg.